Sexuality & Flourishing

(Part 2 of the essay)

Being gay and doing no harmReligious traditionalists often appeal directly to Scripture when censuring "the gay lifestyle." Likewise, natural law traditionalists invoke the ethical norms they see as following from the natural order itself to thus condemn. But only the most trenchant traditionalists fail to give additional reasons. After all, both Christian faith and natural law theory are supposed to be reasonable: Nature's God has made us, designed us a certain way, and reality reflects that. We've only to think carefully about the facts of sex and reproduction to see why the prohibition against homosexuality makes sense, both in the context of the individual and in that of society.

Here and just below, I will rebut arguments made along such lines. I will do two things: First, address the putative harmful effects that acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage will allegedly lead to. And, second, explore how homosexuality connects with the general idea of human flourishing. Later, I will address the theological and moral concerns specifically arising from Christian Scripture and tradition, as well as the philosophical and ethical issues raised by natural law theory.

With respect then to harm: In the culture I grew up in, homosexuality was considered perversion -- a warping of the original intention for human sexuality into something ugly. Indeed, a link was often drawn between sexual abuse as a child and homosexuality as an adult, with a high risk of this alleged cycle perpetuating itself. There is, however, little evidence of any such link, or of any such sequence. So too, there is scant evidence of negative correlations between homosexuality and broad human health indicators (including psychological health), as compared to heterosexuals. (1)In short, there are no compelling reasons to think that gays or lesbians are more at risk of receiving, or perpetrating, harm -- in terms of health, physical safety, or human development -- than heterosexuals.

Traditionalists argue that another potential harm waits in the wings: The less-tangible-yet-still-dangerous denigration of traditional marriage and the nuclear family that would result if same-sex relations and marriage are deemed socially legitimate. How, given the current parlous state of family and marriage in our society, the acceptance of non-traditional understandings of marriage might make things worse is unclear to me. Again, the fact that new people are interested in long-term commitment -- even if of the same-sex sort -- ought, one might have thought, to be a source of cheer for marriage advocates.

The concern seems to be that "if anything goes" then traditional understandings and institutions will thereby be cheapened, be made less worthy, or even that darker forces will be unleashed. Indeed, the impression one gets from many traditionalists is that, if homosexuality receives society's imprimatur, then children will not understand the importance of biology in the propagation of the species, or of the roles of mother and father in nurturing children. They will certainly be deprived of the "gold standard" of nurturing that only a female / male pair of parents can provide. Some traditionalists even fear that "the rules of sexual engagement" will be so loosened that pedophilia and incest will be deemed acceptable.​

These arguments about harm seem to me quite feeble -- for at least five reasons:

It's not as if heterosexuality is in competition with homosexuality, that if the latter is given ground the former somehow must suffer. By and large, people are attracted to the opposite sex; that will not change. Babies will go on being made as they always have, and teenagers will continue to figure out how so.

Gay and lesbian couples who adopt children can and do make fine parents. Again, there is scant evidence that they are somehow worse at parenting than regular couples. By and large, when people choose to be parents, they are able to make a decent go of it. There's nothing magic about parenting: just love and hard work.

These traditionalist concerns fail to account for the general resilience of humans as a species. As a single example, consider the epoch-defining shift from an agricultural-based economy to an industrial-based one. Societies passing through such a shift -- think of late-nineteenth-century Europe and America, or of China in the latter decades of the twentieth-century -- are shaken from bottom to top. Social units, individual identities, and ways of living all go topsy-turvy. And yet, people endure and adapt. It is reasonable to believe that human culture will endure and adapt even in a society that recognizes same-sex relations and marriage. ​

Along similar lines, it is in fact the case that cultures across time and space have adopted sexual norms that, though different than contemporary, Western norms have worked well enough. Two examples: Not that many years ago, the "age of consent" was much lower than it is now. And polygamy is common in many cultures. Though the reasons for the current age of consent and against polygamy are good and reasonable, many cultures without these norms flourished regardless. Who's to say that permitting same-sex marriage won't turn out the same?

Fearing that a society's validating same-sex relations will open the door to all sorts of deviant behavior, that a "slippery slope" is in the offing, truly is a non-starter as an argument. Again, connecting gays and lesbians to such deviancy is not supported by the evidence at hand. It's also grossly unfair to associate gays and lesbians, as individuals, with such behavior. Moreover, there are no broad, mainstream efforts afoot to, say, bless incest or promote pedophilia. Quite the contrary: The social opprobrium against such deviancy -- as against lack of consent in heterosexual relations -- is stronger now than ever.

​Moving -- as I think we must -- past these questions of harm and damage, what might a positive account of flourishing as a human being who happens to be gay look like?​

Being gay and flourishing as a human​​The notion of flourishing is a helpful way to think about humans that are doing well insofar as they are human versus ones that are not. This idea is rooted in ancient Greek (largely, Aristotelian) ideas about eudaimonia ("happiness" or "well-being") as a goal for human life and about humans as substances -- that is, enduring things of a particular kind which possess properties characteristic of such a kind. What it means (largely) for a human person to flourish -- for her to "be well" -- is for her to express, to the fullest, the entire panoply of capacities and abilities that she possesses just insofar as she is human.

So, a person flourishes insofar as he can "tap into" -- can express or realize -- the physical, emotional, intellectual, moral, aesthetic, and spiritual capabilities that he, insofar as he is a human, possesses. Obviously, individuals differ significantly in their particular capabilities, so what it means to flourish is specific to an individual's particular giftings. The phrase 'insofar as' is important because a particular human may have the ability to run like a cheetah or to eat a hundred doughnuts, and yet, as impressive as these feats may be, neither is something that falls within the remit of an ideal exemplar of a human being. This Aristotelian account is thus unabashedly essentialist in orientation.

So, a person can flourish or not flourish, relative to their particular abilities, depending on many things: from his or her physical safety, nutrition, and health, to emotional development and nurture, to intellectual attainment through education and learning, to creative production through artistic training, to moral virtue and spiritual enlightenment through self-discipline. There's much space, in this account, for hard work and discipline. There's also much space for the pure luck of being born to particular parents at a particular time and place.

Now, it is an important -- and difficult -- task for moral philosophers to develop general accounts of well-being. Happily, we need not attempt that here. For, in general, we know flourishing when we see it. If you're watching a riveting drama, or reading a captivating story, it's what you wish when you hope things "turn out well" for the central characters. If you're a concerned citizen, it's what you seek when you hope your candidate is elected. And if you're a parent, it's what you desire when you want "what's best" for your child.

​Again, what counts as flourishing (or not) is particular to the specific situation: People can rise above terrible tragedies and disabilities to great joys and accomplishments; they can likewise squander vast fortunes, privileges, and birthrights. Someone in a rural locale can find deep meaning in living on the land and in small-town community; or, he can be out of work, impoverished, and addicted to opioids. A denizen of the big city can enjoy high culture and cosmopolitan society; or, he can be rootless, disconnected, and an alcoholic. Moreover, against the American myth that anyone can lift themselves up by their bootstraps, how likely a person is to flourish or to flounder is largely determined by the circumstances of where they were born and to whom.

How does being gay factor into this idea of human flourishing? To answer this, we need to talk about sexuality in general.

SexualityBefore considering human sexuality, we might ask ourselves, on a somewhat connected topic, what would be involved in giving a general account of human emotion. Consider the range of emotions: sadness, fear, anger, bitterness, hurt, joy, elation, peace, pleasure, delight, confidence, and so on. Like our ability to perceive colors or sounds, this range is staggering both in its breadth and in the subtle differences between emotions. The physiological, psychological, and philosophical questions raised by our experience of the commonest of emotions -- elation at a victory, say, or dejection at a defeat -- have occupied curious people for millennia.

Sexuality isn't quite as complicated as emotion; yet it's certainly complex enough. And just as to be human is to be an emotional being, so too to be human is to be a sexual being. (2) That is, just as having and expressing emotions is of the essence of being human, so too is having and expressing sexuality. While I have neither the space nor the expertise to offer more than a rudimentary analysis of sexuality here, I can sketch out the following: ​

​Sexuality is much more than just sex -- having sex, engaging in sexual acts -- per se.

From the perspective of biology, sexuality concerns the physical properties and processes necessary for individual humans to produce new humans and for the species to thus endure. These fundamental physical realities are often lost in our debates. That they are thus lost is due, again, to the easy availability of modern contraceptives.

Biologically, what it means for a human to be female is for it to possess two X chromosomes; to be male, an X chromosome and Y chromosome. These genetic realities -- coupled with the processes of fetal development -- produce the physiological and anatomical features characteristic of the two sexes. There are variations on this basic theme -- in terms of additions, deletions, or damage to the sex chromosomes or atypical fetal development -- which can lead to non-standard physiology and anatomy. The older term 'hermaphrodite' -- a person who possesses both male and female sex characteristics -- has been replaced by 'intersex'. But intersex is broader than hermaphroditism proper. To be intersex results from any number of factors that produce "non-binary" (i.e., neither typical male nor typical female) sex characteristics. Though science and medicine understand these as sex development disorders, some intersex people consider this a stigmatizing label.

This biology, as instantiated in a particular male or female, is expressed in their libido -- their sex drive. But this hunger for sex is coupled with other longings that transcend the physical and move to the psychological (physical and emotional intimacy) and to that hard-to-define-thing called eros.

The concept of gender has to do with the social roles that males and females play. In most societies and in most people's conception, the male sex "goes with" stereotypical qualities of the masculine gender relative to the prevailing culture, as does the female sex with the stereotypical qualities of the feminine gender relative to that culture. The awareness that gender is socially constructed is (mostly) a modern, Western one. Issues of gender identity, gender fluidity, and transgenderism are beyond the scope of this essay.

A final aspect of sexuality, and our current theme, is sexual orientation. As the wording suggests, it concerns which way a person's "sexual compass" points: towards the opposite sex, towards the same sex, or towards either. It has to do, fundamentally, with attraction.

Sexual orientationExplanations for why some people are attracted to the same sex vary. Genetics, fetal development, childhood development, social environment, or some complex combination of all of these have been proposed. Indeed, it seems to me that sexual orientation is a sufficiently complex phenomenon that trying to pick it apart into its precise components -- into "how much" genetics, development, environment, or other element "factors into" being gay or straight -- is probably a fool's errand. It is sufficient, for our purposes, to consider gayness a "version" of sexual attraction that supervenes on a set of factors: some built into a person's physical makeup, some "triggered" by developmental or environmental conditions, and some arising from a person's own agency.

Likewise, there are different ways to characterize being gayas a property some individuals have and, in turn, to characterize gay people as a collective group and social entity. Essentialist theories are bottom-up: Inasmuch as people who are gay are such in virtue of something essential about them, gays are likewise constituted as a collective group and social entity in an essential manner. The emphasis here is on identity, as an individual belonging to a particular group. Social constructivisttheories are top-down: People are labeled 'gay' -- that is the identity assigned to them -- in virtue of them having a sexual orientation distinct from the majority of the population and nothing more. It's not that an individual's being gay isn't an essential characteristic of him. It's just that there is no need to assign gay people a special status as a social group. The emphasis here is on not "privileging" heterosexual behavior. Since same-sex attraction is on par with the opposite-sex sort, there's really nothing more to say, no further identity to explore. To my way of thinking, an essentialist account of sexual orientation makes the most sense. Being gay or straight is not like a drop of ink spilled on a shirt. It's ratherlike a drop of ink dissolved in a glass of water. Individual identities and social groupings should reflect that fact. (3)

To return to our earlier question: How does being gay connect into the broader notion of what it means to flourish as a human? Inasmuch as any theory of human flourishing must take into account sexuality in general and sexual orientation in particular, I suggest a straightforward answer. In such a theory, simply replace, as it were, "standard," opposite-sex orientation with "non-standard," same-sex attraction, make suitable adjustments, and leave it at that.Calling opposite-sex attraction 'standard' is not to privilege heterosexuals in some way. It reflects historical, social, and biological realities, including the bedrock fact that heterosexual sex is how our species propagates.

In this way of thinking, same-sex orientation is just as "natural" as the opposite-sex sort. It supervenes upon, and arises from, a set of natural facts -- those of genetics, development, environment, and so on. Indeed, to consider these facts unnatural, abnormal, or perverse would be question-begging -- that is, to fallaciously assume the thing which needs to be established​-- given that the evidence indicates that being gay does no harm and is otherwise compatible with a flourishing life. As to making the appropriate adjustments, clearly -- as our current cultural crises prove -- there are social, legal, and practical ramifications to recognizing same-sex orientation as being on equal standing with the opposite-sex one. Exploring such is beyond my present scope.

Sexual orientation, empathy, and burdens of proofIt's at this point -- if not much earlier -- that most traditionalists will exclaim: "HOLD UP!" For such folks, the very phrasing -- in terms of an orientation -- is controversial: Whether a person's sex drive actually can "point" toward the same sex is itself what's at issue. Typically, they will invoke Scripture or the natural law as the guarantor, as it were, that the adage "opposites attract" holds universally when it comes to sex attraction. That is to say, for these traditionalists, on account either of God's intentions or the reality of the natural law, heterosexuality is how sexuality is supposed to work -- both ethically and as a matter of fact.

So how do these traditionalists account for the fact that millions of people identify as gay? ​​One common response is, to a greater or lesser extent, to simply deny that people who identify as gay really are such. Rather, the putative gay person is "struggling with same-sex attraction" or some other watered-down notion of being gay. Another usual response is to search for a defect of some sort: A difficult childhood, bad parenting, illness or injury, mental illness, trauma of some sort, a negative environment, or other factor is to blame. So, homosexuality is like an illness. A related response is to seek a failing of some kind: The influences of our sexually depraved culture were not resisted. The gay person failed to rise above the primal fact of Original Sin. He gave in to temptation. Parents or family or church failed the child who "turned out" gay. So, being gay reflects an ethical breach of some sort.

These responses seem to me tone deaf at best, heartless and cruel at worst. If someone reports to me that his experience of sexual attraction is of the same-sex variety. If, after twenty years of effort, his marriage has failed because he's "tormented" by same-sex attraction. If he's been counseled, prayed for, given all manner of help for a "cure" for his homosexuality -- all to no avail. And, if he just can't change--then why should I not believe him? Would not empathy compel me to take his testimony as credible? Would not the burden of proof be on me as denier than on him as testifier?

I'm not colorblind, yet I believe those who say they can't distinguish red apples from green ones. I'm not dyslexic, yet I don't discount those who report "scrambling" of written text. I don't have a gluten allergy, yet I tailor my food choices because my wife has one. I do have a serious mental illness that involves intrusive and racing thoughts, depression, and other symptoms -- and I would be both hurt and angry if someone refused to take my testimony at face value. And though I can't perceive the colors of a daffodil the way my daughter does, I can't argue with the result when she distills her perceptions into a brilliant painting.How is the testimony of those who report a persistent, thoroughgoing attraction to the same sex different than these other kinds of testimonies?

Admitting a gay person's testimony -- the first-person reporting of the experience of same-sex attraction by a credible witness -- is necessary. But it is not sufficient. One must also set aside the search for a defect or a failing. Again, if being gay does no harm, and if it is otherwise compatible with a flourishing life, then why the search for defects or failings?Wouldn't the burden of proof lie with the traditionalist to explain how a supposed defect or failing really counts as such?Even if one can point to an event (or set of events) in a person's life that might plausibly count as a "trigger" for him to subsequently identify as gay, and even if that event (or set of events) might reasonably count as "negative" (for example, trauma of some kind), how does it follow that his resulting sexual orientation is wrong or defective?

Compare his situation to that of a straight person who suffers some similar trauma yet who "stays" straight. Logically, all that we are able to conclude from such a comparison is that sexual orientation is something that can either be manifested persistently throughout one's life (regardless of trauma) or, due to an underlying disposition, can "break" one way or another if triggered by events. It's question-begging to assume that if a person "turns out" gay that whatever particular life history (especially if traumatic) they have is the reason for their sexual orientation, if one doesn't also assume the same about people who "turn out" straight. Whether a same-sex orientation counts as abnormal, unnatural, or defective is what the traditionalist needs to prove -- assuming, as I think we must, that he bears the burden of proof.

Now, most traditionalists are sincere and compassionate. They recognize the need to speak to the felt experience of those identifying as gay. It is my observation however, that, caught between what they see as immutable truths on the one hand and the testimony of gay people on the other, they find themselves trapped in a kind of cognitive dissonance. They don't wish to out-and-out deny the testimony of gay people. So they give half-descriptions -- for example, "the struggle with same-sex attraction" -- a struggle that can, it is implied, be won with sufficient effort. They search for defects and failings, since those prove what Scripture and the natural law allegedly tell them: that heterosexuality is how sexuality is supposed to work.

For myself, as a former traditionalist about sexual orientation, I must now conclude thus: Demonstrating empathy for a person who reports a kind of sexual attraction I've not experienced; showing him the respect to take his testimony at face value; and placing burdens of proof where they belong: These compel me to take Being Gay as a fact that must be admitted and engaged, both with compassion and with intellectual honesty.

Now, for what I've shown thus far, it may very well still be true that God or the natural law rule out same-sex relations. If so, and regardless of the humanizing and mitigating points I've made heretofore, to act upon same-sex attraction would be ethically wrong. However, compassion and intellectual honesty force us to be perfectly clear about what this means for gay people: namely, that they are ethically bound to live as few straight people can -- as celibate.

In the sections that follow I will explore whether in fact God or the natural law does place such a burden on gay people. I begin with an exploration of the Old Testament's teaching on homosexuality.

Footnotes:(1) Famously, in 1975 the American Psychological Association (APA) officially "de-listed" homosexuality as a mental disorder. The following is from an official statement by the APA and captures, concisely, how most health professionals view homosexuality: "[L]esbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."

The entire statement is helpful.

"Answers to your questions: For a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality," American Psychological Association (Washington, DC), 2008, www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.pdf

​(2) Some may find the so-called Genderbread Person a helpful starting point for these matters.​"It's Pronounced Metrosexual," http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2015/03/the-genderbread-person-v3/#sthash.468mNeGX.dpbs​

​(3) The distinction I make here -- between essentialist versus social constructivist conceptions of gay persons as a collective group -- is how I understand, and then summarize, the relevant parts of Pickett's article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy referenced earlier. There's a vast literature here, to include such topics as "queer theory."

Credits for images:"Hippocrates, engraving by Peter Paul Rubens" -- Public Domain. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hippocrates_rubens.jpg(I so cleverly picked this photo because the phrase -- Primum non nocere ["First do no harm"] -- is usually ascribed to Hippocrates and his famous Oath. Apparently, that ascription is a mistake -- if the Wikipedia entry is to be believed.)"Beautiful Bloom Blooming Blossom 355363" by Pixabayhttps://www.pexels.com/photo/beautiful-bloom-blooming-blossom-355363/"Venus and Adonis" by Annibale Carracci -- Museo Nacional del Prado, Public Domainhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curd=15385022"Soldier using a prismatic compass to get an azimuth" by US War Department, United States government printing office (Washington) - FM21-100: Basic Field Manual, Soldier's Handbook (PDF), page 155, figure 56. Created: 31 December 1940. Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26878684"An Ishihara test image as seen by able-bodied and by persons with a variety of Daltonism forms" https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AIshihara_compare_1.jpg